Batman is a neocon

By Sharon McGovern

In conservative circles there is a tradition of wailing and gnashing teeth over American movie culture. It’s well deserved. There is much about the industry that is despicable, movies are dauntingly complex to make, and most of what passes as film criticism—which might serve as a corrective or guide—is degraded and lame. It’s a near miracle that decent movies are made at all, let alone any that would please the notoriously fussy and uptight Right.

The folly of the war in Iraq has been a defining theorem in Hollywood for the past few years, and the tenor of conservative complaint has become more frenzied as the movies have become more blatantly political and infuriating. One after another the dramas arrive, all bravely asserting exactly the same thing: Americans are epic bumblers with a corrupt and moronic leadership, and a security apparatus populated with bullies and monsters. Some, such as the Jason Bourne movies, have done very well. More—and specifically those that have portrayed US fighting men and women as rapists, murderers, cowards and dupes—have failed. They have failed so utterly that only the bright burning certainty of righteousness on the part of an influential segment of the American movie industry could explain why they continue to go into production in the face of massive indifference if not hostility of audiences.

Never let it be said members of the ideological left in Hollywood are without principles. They back their shuddering discomfort with the United States and its defenders with their sweat and toil, reputations, and many millions of dollars. But as it turns out, defeatism and national chagrin aren’t so terribly popular in America or abroad...

Having seen the film (on the BIG IMAX screen ), ...well, I liked 3/4 of it.

Chris Nolan and David Goyer take some "jabs" at the United States' unilateral approach to conflicts. Their "we must not act like them regardless of the provocation involved" came through loud and clear.

Their liberal ideology got in the way of the story line and they should have simply allowed the events to follow through to their logical conclusion.

Batman, is truthfully, a vigilante. The Joker understands this. And until they allow him to be who he truly is, they won't have a great Batman.

Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination and probably the Oscar itself.

If they gave Alan Arkin the Academy Award for LMS, they should give Ledger the Oscar for The Dark Knight.

That pencil *trick* alone deserves an Oscar nomination. ;^)

P.S. Yes, Senator Patrick Leahy was in this Batman flick as well, but his brief cameo was well done.

During his cameo, I told the woman sitting right next to me, "Do you know that man with the Joker is, in fact, a United States Senator...?? She just stared at me in disbelief.

***Personally, I favor the 1989 film. ***

How about this one!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035665/

Batman whips up on Japanese spys!

It was re-released in 1966 to beat the Bruce Wayne Batman flick to theaters.

I don’t know if it really came after unilateralism as much as you think in fact in a way it came off as a admission to the fact that you can’t just sit back and wait for help to arrive or that things will get magically better and terrorists will put down weapons and take up writing. There are some people that don’t just want money or power they just want death and destruction, to see the world burn(who does that sounds like? Culture of death...). THose that stand alone against them have to take actions that may make them bad in the public eyes, but the public needs that antihero because it is that antihero saving them in the long run.

I saw quite the opposite in possible political messages. Especially from Alfred. Talk about how some bad guys are just into the kill. Talk about how bad guys will fight back and things will get ugly but you have to stick it out. And talk about how you can’t always be the beloved hero and actually do what needs to be done.

Batman isn’t truthfully JUST a vigilante. Batman is nuts. That’s been a big part of the message for both movies. Remember Rachel’s mask speech from the first movie. Even though he’s not getting the credit this is the Frank Miller Batman, heck they even stuck in a Sons Of The Batman type group straight out of his Dark Knight. Frank Miller’s Batman isn’t all there.

Well, you are making my point.

Against certain factions that care little for life, and want death to serve as some "larger message", you can't afford to play by the "rules" and must take decisive action that will ultimately save lives in the long run.

The film made over 66 million yesterday.

"Holy dollar signs Batman..." ;^)

Batman isn’t truthfully JUST a vigilante. Batman is nuts

That's what the Joker understands better than anyone, including Wayne himself.

Remember Alfred's response when Bruce asks him how they were ultimately able to "catch" that thief...?

They burned down the jungle.

A vigilante does what needs to be done.

Speaking of Miller, have you seen the new trailer for The Spirit...??

G*d, it looks awful. What was Miller thinking....??

You might be onto something ;P The wannabe-Batman asks the real one what the difference between them is-—Batman only makes a joke about hockey pants. IN truth, there IS no large difference. Batman has the resources and training to deal non-lethal blows to the bad guys.

In real life, anyone else fighting for justice would have to use lethal force.

I don’t mind a ‘moral high ground’ from time to time but someone like the Joker has to be killed because he’s too smart and too evil to be let loose as Batman does in the DC universe.

Even in Star Wars, Mace Windu came to the conclusion that the Chanceller(soon-to-be-Emperor) was “too dangerous to be left alive.” Sometimes you have to KILL the bad guys.

That’s always been part of the Miller Batman/ Joker relationship, Joker knows they’re nearly the same person, Batman can’t entertain the possibility.

Yeah Spirit doesn’t look so good. Watchmen on the other hand had me nearly cheering. Hope that one comes out half as good as it looked.

Yeah primarily Batman just doesn’t like the fact that they dress up like him, use guns, and suck. If they didn’t dress up like him he probably wouldn’t mind, if they were actually competent he’d probably love them.

From a Hollywood perspective though you can’t kill the Joker. The biggest mistake of the first wave of Batman movies is they killed off the single best bad guy in the history of Batman comics. You could make a dozen Batman and every other one he’s against the Joker and all those would be brilliant. Sadly Heath died and he’ll be a hard act to follow. He was the perfect Frank Miller Joker. Batman never really lets him loose, he locks him up in Arkham or where ever, but Joker, like all comicbook bad guys, always gets out at the speed of plot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.